ScalingStacks

6. Perturbation to hyperkähler metrics [02HS]

Original official author HTML, exact retained edition. Historical TeX conversion verdicts remain unchanged. Cited-edition alignment and mathematical self-containment are not assessed.

Complete original source context · Original author HTML

6. Perturbation to hyperkähler metrics

In the previous section we have constructed a 44–manifold MϵM_{\epsilon} together with a closed definite triple 𝝎¯ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{\epsilon} which is approximately hyperkähler in the sense that the intersection matrix QϵQ_{\epsilon} associated with 𝝎¯ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{\epsilon} differs from the identity by arbitrarily small terms as ϵ→0\epsilon\rightarrow 0. We would like to deform 𝝎¯ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{\epsilon} into a genuine hyperkähler triple using analysis. Since the geometry of MϵM_{\epsilon} degenerates as as ϵ→0\epsilon\rightarrow 0 we need to take some care in applying the Implicit Function Theorem.

As explained in Section 2 we can reformulate the problem in terms of an elliptic PDE. Let gϵg_{\epsilon} be the Riemannian metric on MϵM_{\epsilon} defined by 𝝎¯ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{\epsilon}. Denote by ℋϵ+\mathcal{H}^{+}_{\epsilon} the space of self-dual harmonic forms with respect to gϵg_{\epsilon}. By Proposition 5.1 ℋϵ+\mathcal{H}^{+}_{\epsilon} is 33–dimensional spanned by ωϵi\omega^{i}_{\epsilon}, i=1,2,3i=1,2,3. The equation we want to solve is (2.8), i.e.

(6.1) d+​𝒂¯+𝜻¯=ℱ⁡((id−Qϵ)−d−​𝒂¯−∗d−​𝒂¯),d∗​𝒂¯=0,d^{+}\bm{\underline{a}}+\bm{\underline{\zeta}}=\mathcal{F}\left((\text{id}-Q_{\epsilon})-d^{-}\bm{\underline{a}}^{-}\ast d^{-}\bm{\underline{a}}\right),\qquad d^{\ast}\bm{\underline{a}}=0,

for a triple 𝒂¯\bm{\underline{a}} of 11–forms on MϵM_{\epsilon} and a triple 𝜻¯∈ℋϵ+⊗ℝ3\bm{\underline{\zeta}}\in\mathcal{H}^{+}_{\epsilon}\otimes\mathbb{R}^{3}.

The linearisation of (6.1) is an isomorphism since b1​(Mϵ)=0b_{1}(M_{\epsilon})=0 by Proposition 5.1. Our main task is to show that its inverse has bounded norm as ϵ→0\epsilon\rightarrow 0 and to control the non-linearities in (6.1) by introducing appropriate Banach spaces.

6.1. The linear operator d∗+2​d+d^{\ast}+2\,d^{+} for collapsing Gibbons–Hawking metrics

Before introducing weighted Hölder spaces and proving the main estimates, it is helpful to look more closely at the linearisation of (6.1). It involves the operator D=d∗+2​d+:Ω1​(Mϵ)→Ω0​(Mϵ)⊕Ω+​(Mϵ)D=d^{\ast}+2\,d^{+}\colon\thinspace\Omega^{1}(M_{\epsilon})\rightarrow\Omega^{0}(M_{\epsilon})\oplus\Omega^{+}(M_{\epsilon}), where adjoints and projections are computed using the metric gϵg_{\epsilon}.

We are interested in understanding the behaviour of the operator DD (in particular, the presence of small eigenvalues) for a sequence of collapsing metrics in the Gibbons–Hawking form (3.3a).

Consider then the metric

gϵgh=hϵ​g𝕋+ϵ2​hϵ−1​θ2g^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon}=h_{\epsilon}\,g_{\mathbb{T}}+\epsilon^{2}h_{\epsilon}^{-1}\theta^{2}

of (4.6) over the circle bundle π:P→𝒰ϵ⊂𝕋∗\pi\colon\thinspace P\rightarrow\mathcal{U}_{\epsilon}\subset\mathbb{T}^{\ast}. By Lemma 4.9 the open sets 𝒰ϵ\mathcal{U}_{\epsilon} form an exhaustion of 𝕋∗\mathbb{T}^{\ast} as ϵ→0\epsilon\rightarrow 0.

We first consider the geometry of gϵghg^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon} and in particular calculate its Levi–Civita connection.

As before let θ1,θ2,θ3\theta_{1},\theta_{2},\theta_{3} denote closed 11–forms on 𝕋\mathbb{T} such that g𝕋=θ12+θ22+θ32g_{\mathbb{T}}=\theta_{1}^{2}+\theta_{2}^{2}+\theta_{3}^{2}. Let ξ1,ξ2,ξ3\xi_{1},\xi_{2},\xi_{3} be the dual vector fields with respect to g𝕋g_{\mathbb{T}}. We will not distinguish between a vector tangent to 𝕋\mathbb{T} and its horizontal lift to PP with respect to the connection θ\theta. In particular, [ξi,ξj]=−d​θ​(ξi,ξj)​ξ[\xi_{i},\xi_{j}]=-d\theta(\xi_{i},\xi_{j})\,\xi as vector fields on PP. Finally, let ξ\xi be the vertical vector field normalised so that θ⁡(ξ)=1\theta(\xi)=1.

Since θ⁡([ξ,ξi])=−d​θ​(ξ,ξi)=0\theta([\xi,\xi_{i}])=-d\theta(\xi,\xi_{i})=0 and π∗​[ξ,ξi]=[π∗​ξ,ξi]=0\pi_{\ast}[\xi,\xi_{i}]=[\pi_{\ast}\xi,\xi_{i}]=0, we have [ξ,ξi]=0[\xi,\xi_{i}]=0. The Koszul formula

2​⟨∇XY,Z⟩=⟨[X,Y],Z⟩−⟨[Y,Z],X⟩+⟨[Z,X],Y⟩+X⋅⟨Y,Z⟩+Y⋅⟨X,Z⟩−Z⋅⟨X,Y⟩2\langle\nabla_{X}Y,Z\rangle=\langle[X,Y],Z\rangle-\langle[Y,Z],X\rangle+\langle[Z,X],Y\rangle+X\cdot\langle Y,Z\rangle+Y\cdot\langle X,Z\rangle-Z\cdot\langle X,Y\rangle

then allows to calculate the Levi–Civita connection ∇\nabla of the metric gϵghg^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon}:

∇ξξ=−14ϵ2∇𝕋hϵ−2,∇ξiξ=−12hϵ−1(ξi⋅hϵ)ξ+12ϵ2hϵ−2(ξi⌟dθ)♯𝕋,∇ξξi=−12​hϵ−1​(ξi⋅hϵ)​ξ+12​ϵ2​hϵ−2​(ξi​⌟​d​θ)♯𝕋,∇ξjξi=−12​d​θ​(ξi,ξj)​ξ+12​hϵ−1​((ξj⋅hϵ)​ξi−(ξi⋅hϵ)​ξj−δi​j​∇𝕋hϵ).\begin{gathered}\nabla_{\xi}\xi=-\tfrac{1}{4}\epsilon^{2}\nabla^{\mathbb{T}}h_{\epsilon}^{-2},\qquad\nabla_{\xi_{i}}\xi=-\tfrac{1}{2}h_{\epsilon}^{-1}(\xi_{i}\cdot h_{\epsilon})\,\xi+\tfrac{1}{2}\epsilon^{2}h_{\epsilon}^{-2}(\xi_{i}\lrcorner d\theta)^{\sharp_{\mathbb{T}}},\\ \nabla_{\xi}\xi_{i}=-\tfrac{1}{2}h_{\epsilon}^{-1}(\xi_{i}\cdot h_{\epsilon})\,\xi+\tfrac{1}{2}\epsilon^{2}h_{\epsilon}^{-2}(\xi_{i}\lrcorner d\theta)^{\sharp_{\mathbb{T}}},\\ \nabla_{\xi_{j}}\xi_{i}=-\tfrac{1}{2}d\theta(\xi_{i},\xi_{j})\,\xi+\tfrac{1}{2}h_{\epsilon}^{-1}\left((\xi_{j}\cdot h_{\epsilon})\,\xi_{i}-(\xi_{i}\cdot h_{\epsilon})\,\xi_{j}-\delta_{ij}\nabla^{\mathbb{T}}h_{\epsilon}\right).\end{gathered}

Here ∇𝕋\nabla^{\mathbb{T}} and ♯𝕋{}^{\sharp_{\mathbb{T}}} denote gradient and musical isomorphism with respect to the flat metric g𝕋g_{\mathbb{T}} and we used the fact that hϵh_{\epsilon} is S1S^{1}–invariant. Since ∇\nabla is a metric connection, we calculate the covariant derivatives of the 11–forms θ,θi\theta,\theta_{i} by duality. Since we will need this later, we write out formulas for ∇ξθ\nabla_{\xi}\theta and ∇ξθi\nabla_{\xi}\theta_{i}:

(6.2) ∇ξθ=12​hϵ−1​d​hϵ,∇ξθi=−12​ϵ2​hϵ−3​(ξi⋅hϵ)​θ+12​ϵ2​hϵ−2​(ξi​⌟​d​θ).\nabla_{\xi}\theta=\tfrac{1}{2}h_{\epsilon}^{-1}dh_{\epsilon},\qquad\nabla_{\xi}\theta_{i}=-\tfrac{1}{2}\epsilon^{2}h_{\epsilon}^{-3}(\xi_{i}\cdot h_{\epsilon})\,\theta+\tfrac{1}{2}\epsilon^{2}h_{\epsilon}^{-2}(\xi_{i}\lrcorner d\theta).

Now, the cotangent bundle of MϵghM^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon} is trivial as it is spanned by θ,θ1,θ2,θ3\theta,\theta_{1},\theta_{2},\theta_{3}. Thus we can write every 11–form aa as

(6.3) a=ϵ​a0​θ+a1​θ1+a2​θ2+a3​θ3a=\epsilon\,a_{0}\,\theta+a_{1}\,\theta_{1}+a_{2}\,\theta_{2}+a_{3}\,\theta_{3}

for functions a0,a1,a2,a3a_{0},a_{1},a_{2},a_{3}. Note that

|a|gϵgh2=hϵ​|a0|2+hϵ−1​(|a1|2+|a2|2+|a3|2).|a|^{2}_{g^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon}}=h_{\epsilon}\,|a_{0}|^{2}+h_{\epsilon}^{-1}\left(|a_{1}|^{2}+|a_{2}|^{2}+|a_{3}|^{2}\right).

A direct computation using the fact that θi\theta_{i} is closed for i=1,2,3i=1,2,3 and (hϵ,ϵ​d​θ)(h_{\epsilon},\epsilon\,d\theta) is a solution of the monopole equation (3.4) with respect to the flat metric g𝕋g_{\mathbb{T}} shows that

(6.4) d∗​a=−hϵ−1​(∑i=13ξi⋅ai+1ϵ​hϵ2​ξ⋅a0),2​d+​a=∑i=13(ξi⋅a0+hϵ−1​(ξj⋅ak−ξk⋅aj)+hϵ−1​(ξi⋅hϵ)​a0−1ϵ​(ξ⋅ai))​ωϵ,igh,\begin{gathered}d^{\ast}a=-h_{\epsilon}^{-1}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{3}{\xi_{i}\cdot a_{i}}+\tfrac{1}{\epsilon}h_{\epsilon}^{2}\,\xi\cdot a_{0}\right),\\ 2\,d^{+}a=\sum_{i=1}^{3}{\left(\xi_{i}\cdot a_{0}+h_{\epsilon}^{-1}(\xi_{j}\cdot a_{k}-\xi_{k}\cdot a_{j})+h_{\epsilon}^{-1}(\xi_{i}\cdot h_{\epsilon})\,a_{0}-\tfrac{1}{\epsilon}(\xi\cdot a_{i})\right)\omega^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon,i}},\end{gathered}

where ωϵ,igh\omega^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon,i}, i=1,2,3i=1,2,3, is the hyperkähler triple 𝝎¯ϵgh\bm{\underline{\omega}}^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon} of (4.6).

By Fourier analysis along the circle fibres we define projections Π0\Pi_{0} and Π⟂\Pi_{\perp} onto S1S^{1}–invariant and oscillatory components of functions. Via the trivialisation (6.3) Π0\Pi_{0} and Π⟂\Pi_{\perp} extend to 11–forms. Since hϵh_{\epsilon} is S1S^{1}–invariant we see from (6.4) that the operator DD respects this decomposition.

For any fixed τ∈(0,1)\tau\in(0,1) restrict attention to the region in MϵghM^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon} where ρj,ρi≥c​ϵ1−τ2\rho_{j},\rho_{i}\geq c\,\epsilon^{\frac{1-\tau}{2}} for all i=1,…,ni=1,\dots,n and j=1,…,8j=1,\dots,8. Then

‖hϵ−1‖C0≤C​ϵ1+τ2,‖∇𝕋hϵ‖C0≤C​ϵτ\|h_{\epsilon}-1\|_{C^{0}}\leq C\epsilon^{\frac{1+\tau}{2}},\qquad\|\nabla^{\mathbb{T}}h_{\epsilon}\|_{C^{0}}\leq C\epsilon^{\tau}

by Lemma 4.10. We conclude that the operator DD of (6.4) acting on S1S^{1}–invariant 11–forms approaches the Dirac operator

(6.5) D0:Ω0(𝕋)⊕Ω1(𝕋)→Ω0(𝕋)⊕Ω1(𝕋),(f,γ)↦(d∗γ,df+∗dγ)D_{0}\colon\thinspace\Omega^{0}(\mathbb{T})\oplus\Omega^{1}(\mathbb{T})\rightarrow\Omega^{0}(\mathbb{T})\oplus\Omega^{1}(\mathbb{T}),\qquad(f,\gamma)\mapsto(d^{\ast}\gamma,df+\ast d\gamma)

of the flat torus 𝕋\mathbb{T}.

Moreover, using the expressions (6.2) for ∇ξθ\nabla_{\xi}\theta and ∇ξθi\nabla_{\xi}\theta_{i} we find

ϵ2​hϵ−1​|∇a|gϵgh2≥|∇ξa|gϵgh2≥hϵ​|ξ⋅a0|2+hϵ−1​∑i=13|ξ⋅ai|2−C​hϵ−4​|∇𝕋hϵ|g𝕋2​(hϵ​|a0|2+hϵ−1​∑i=13|ai|2).\epsilon^{2}h_{\epsilon}^{-1}|\nabla a|^{2}_{g^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon}}\geq|\nabla_{\xi}a|^{2}_{g^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon}}\geq h_{\epsilon}|\xi\cdot a_{0}|^{2}+h_{\epsilon}^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{3}{|\xi\cdot a_{i}|^{2}}-Ch_{\epsilon}^{-4}|\nabla^{\mathbb{T}}h_{\epsilon}|^{2}_{g_{\mathbb{T}}}\left(h_{\epsilon}|a_{0}|^{2}+h_{\epsilon}^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{3}{|a_{i}|^{2}}\right).

Thus in the region where ρj,ρi≥c​ϵ1−τ2\rho_{j},\rho_{i}\geq c\,\epsilon^{\frac{1-\tau}{2}} for some τ>0\tau>0 we have

(6.6) ‖Π⟂​a‖C0,α​(S1)≤C​ϵ​‖∇a‖C0,α​(S1)\|\Pi_{\perp}a\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(S^{1})}\leq C\epsilon\,\|\nabla a\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(S^{1})}

on each fibre for all ϵ\epsilon sufficiently small.

These two observations — the convergence of the operator DD to the Dirac operator D0D_{0} of the flat 33–torus as ϵ→0\epsilon\rightarrow 0 and the strong control of the oscillatory part of 11–forms — will be crucial in the rest of the section. We will exploit the same remarks when considering blow-downs of ALF gravitational instantons. Let (M,gM)(M,g_{M}) be a complete ALF space. Given a sequence Ri→∞R_{i}\rightarrow\infty consider the blow down Ri−2​gMR_{i}^{-2}g_{M}. Since by Definition 3.6 Ri−2​gMR_{i}^{-2}g_{M} is asymptotic (up to a double cover in the dihedral case) to the Gibbons–Hawking metric

(1+Ri−1​k2​ρ)​gℝ3+Ri−2​(1+Ri−1​k2​ρ)−1​θ2,\left(1+R_{i}^{-1}\frac{k}{2\rho}\right)\,g_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}+R_{i}^{-2}\left(1+R_{i}^{-1}\frac{k}{2\rho}\right)^{-1}\theta^{2},

as i→∞i\rightarrow\infty the behaviour of the operator DD with respect to the metric Ri−2​gMR_{i}^{-2}g_{M} is the same as the one observed for the metric gϵghg^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon} as ϵ→0\epsilon\rightarrow 0 with the flat ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3} in place of the flat 33–torus 𝕋\mathbb{T}. Namely, on the region ρ≥c​Ri−1−τ2\rho\geq c\,R_{i}^{-\frac{1-\tau}{2}} (6.6) holds with ϵ=Ri−1\epsilon=R_{i}^{-1} and the operator DD converges to the Dirac operator D0D_{0} of flat space ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3}.

Remark.

The behaviour of natural differential operators (the Laplacian acting on pp–forms, the Dirac operator) associated with Riemannian metrics collapsing with bounded curvature and diameter have been studied by many authors, cf. for example [28, 27]. The concrete situation we are interested in is a simple case of this more general theory and it seemed more appropriate to exploit the explicit nature of the Gibbons–Hawking metric rather than appealing to these more general results.

In order to control the growth of differential forms close to the punctures on 𝕋∗\mathbb{T}^{\ast} and on the end of an ALF space we will now introduce weighted Hölder spaces.

6.2. Weighted Hölder spaces

We work on the Riemannian 44–manifold (Mϵ,gϵ)(M_{\epsilon},g_{\epsilon}) constructed in Section 5. The aim of this subsection is to introduce weighted Hölder spaces and prove a weighted Schauder estimate for the operator D=d∗+2​d+D=d^{\ast}+2\,d^{+} associated with the metric gϵg_{\epsilon}.

For R0R_{0} sufficiently large and ϵ=ϵ⁡(R0)\epsilon=\epsilon(R_{0}) sufficiently small we define a weight function ρϵ\rho_{\epsilon} as follows: we set

(6.7) ρϵ={ϵif ​ρj≤R0​ϵ,ρjif ​2​R0​ϵ≤ρj≤ρ0,ϵif ​ρi≤R0​ϵ,ρiif ​2​R0​ϵ≤ρi≤ρ0,1if ​ρj,ρi≥2​ρ0​ for all ​j=1,…,8,i=1,…,n,\rho_{\epsilon}=\begin{cases}\epsilon&\mbox{if }\rho_{j}\leq R_{0}\epsilon,\\ \rho_{j}&\mbox{if }2R_{0}\epsilon\leq\rho_{j}\leq\rho_{0},\\ \epsilon&\mbox{if }\rho_{i}\leq R_{0}\epsilon,\\ \rho_{i}&\mbox{if }2R_{0}\epsilon\leq\rho_{i}\leq\rho_{0},\\ 1&\mbox{if }\rho_{j},\rho_{i}\geq 2\rho_{0}\mbox{ for all }j=1,\dots,8,i=1,\dots,n,\end{cases}

and let ρϵ\rho_{\epsilon} interpolate smoothly and monotonically between the various regions. By abuse of notation we think of ρϵ\rho_{\epsilon} as defined both on MϵM_{\epsilon} and on MϵghM^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon} or its double cover P|𝒰ϵP|_{\mathcal{U}_{\epsilon}}.

Definition 6.8.

For each δ∈ℝ\delta\in\mathbb{R}, k∈ℤ≥0k\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0} and α∈(0,1)\alpha\in(0,1) define the weighted Hölder norm Cδk,αC^{k,\alpha}_{\delta} by

‖a‖Cδk,α=∑j=1k‖ρϵ−δ+j​∇ja‖C0+supd⁡(x,y)<inj​gϵ​min⁡{ρϵ​(x)−δ+k+α,ρϵ​(y)−δ+k+α}​|∇ka​(x)−∇ka​(y)||x−y|α.\|a\|_{C^{k,\alpha}_{\delta}}=\sum_{j=1}^{k}{\|\rho_{\epsilon}^{-\delta+j}\nabla^{j}a\|_{C^{0}}}+\text{sup}_{d(x,y)<\text{inj}\,g_{\epsilon}}{\min{\left\{\rho_{\epsilon}(x)^{-\delta+k+\alpha},\rho_{\epsilon}(y)^{-\delta+k+\alpha}\right\}}\frac{|\nabla^{k}a(x)-\nabla^{k}a(y)|}{|x-y|^{\alpha}}}.

Here all norms and covariant derivatives are computed with respect to the metric gϵg_{\epsilon} and ∇ka​(x)\nabla^{k}a(x) and ∇ka​(y)\nabla^{k}a(y) are compared using parallel transport along the unique geodesic connecting xx and yy. Similarly set ‖a‖Cδ0=‖ρ−δ​a‖C0\|a\|_{C^{0}_{\delta}}=\|\rho^{-\delta}a\|_{C^{0}}.

The following simple estimate for products in Cδ−10,αC^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1} will be used to control the non-linearities.

Lemma 6.9.

For every δ<1\delta<1 there exists a constant C>0C>0 independent of ϵ\epsilon such that

‖u​v‖Cδ−10,α≤C​ϵδ−1​‖u‖Cδ−10,α​‖v‖Cδ−10,α.\|u\,v\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}\leq C\epsilon^{\delta-1}\|u\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}\|v\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}.
Proof.

From the definition of the Cδ−10,αC^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}–norm it is immediate to check that

‖u​v‖Cδ−10,α≤C​‖ρϵδ−1‖C0​‖u‖Cδ−10,α​‖v‖Cδ−10,α.\|u\,v\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}\leq C\|\rho_{\epsilon}^{\delta-1}\|_{C^{0}}\|u\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}\|v\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}.

Since ρϵ≥c​ϵ\rho_{\epsilon}\geq c\,\epsilon and δ−1<0\delta-1<0 the result follows. ∎

We now consider the operator D=d∗+2​d+D=d^{\ast}+2\,d^{+} acting on 11–forms of class Cδ1,αC^{1,\alpha}_{\delta}. We prove the following weighted Schauder estimate.

Proposition 6.10.

For every δ∈ℝ\delta\in\mathbb{R} there exists a constant C>0C>0 independent of ϵ\epsilon such that

‖a‖Cδ1,α≤C⁡(‖D​a‖Cδ−10,α+‖a‖Cδ0).\|a\|_{C^{1,\alpha}_{\delta}}\leq C\left(\|Da\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}+\|a\|_{C^{0}_{\delta}}\right).
Proof.

In order to prove this estimate it is convenient to cut the manifold MϵM_{\epsilon} in various pieces and analyse the geometry separately in each of them. The global estimate follows by combining the “local” estimates obtained in each of these pieces.

Consider first the region ρj≤2​R0​ϵ\rho_{j}\leq 2R_{0}\epsilon for some j=1,…,8j=1,\dots,8. The rescaled metric ϵ−2​gϵ\epsilon^{-2}g_{\epsilon} is isometric to a compact region in the DmjD_{m_{j}} ALF space (Mj,gMj)(M_{j},g_{M_{j}}).

Now, given a 11–form aa on MϵM_{\epsilon}, restrict aa to the region ρj≤2​R0​ϵ\rho_{j}\leq 2R_{0}\epsilon and define a~=ϵ−1−δ​a\tilde{a}=\epsilon^{-1-\delta}a. The standard Schauder estimate for the elliptic operator DD associated with the metric gMjg_{M_{j}} is

‖a~‖C1,α≤C⁡(‖D​a~‖C0,α+‖a~‖C0).\|\tilde{a}\|_{C^{1,\alpha}}\leq C\left(\|D\tilde{a}\|_{C^{0,\alpha}}+\|\tilde{a}\|_{C^{0}}\right).

Since |a~|ϵ−2​gϵ=ϵ−δ​|a|gϵ|\tilde{a}|_{\epsilon^{-2}g_{\epsilon}}=\epsilon^{-\delta}|a|_{g_{\epsilon}} and the norms ∇a~\nabla\tilde{a} and D​a~D\tilde{a} are related in a similar way to those of ∇a\nabla a and D​aDa, the weighted Schauder estimate follows immediately.

The same argument can be applied in the region ρi≤2​R0​ϵ\rho_{i}\leq 2R_{0}\epsilon: the role of MjM_{j} is now played by a small perturbation (cf. the beginning of Section 5.2) of the Aki−1A_{k_{i}-1} ALF space NiN_{i}.

Consider now the transition region R0​ϵ≤ρj≤ρ0R_{0}\,\epsilon\leq\rho_{j}\leq\rho_{0} for some j=1,…,8j=1,\dots,8. We can work on the double cover H2​mj−4H^{2m_{j}-4} and restrict to ℤ2\mathbb{Z}_{2}–invariant forms. Scaling by ϵ\epsilon as above we reduce to consider the restriction of H2​mj−4H^{2m_{j}-4} to the region R0≤ρ≤ρ0ϵR_{0}\leq\rho\leq\frac{\rho_{0}}{\epsilon} in ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3} endowed with a metric

g=(1+ϵ​λj+mj−2ρ)​gℝ3+(1+ϵ​λj+mj−2ρ)−1​θ2+O⁡(ρ−3)+O⁡(ϵ3​ρ2).g=\left(1+\epsilon\lambda_{j}+\frac{m_{j}-2}{\rho}\right)g_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}+\left(1+\epsilon\lambda_{j}+\frac{m_{j}-2}{\rho}\right)^{-1}\theta^{2}+O(\rho^{-3})+O(\epsilon^{3}\rho^{2}).

Moreover, after rescaling the weight function ρϵ\rho_{\epsilon} coincides with the radial function ρ\rho on ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3}.

Fix a number σ∈(0,1)\sigma\in(0,1). For each point xx let π⁡(x)\pi(x) be its image in ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3} and set R=σ​ρ​(x)R=\sigma\rho(x). Up to changing R0R_{0} and ρ0\rho_{0} into (1−σ)​R0(1-\sigma)R_{0} and (1+σ)​ρ0(1+\sigma)\rho_{0} we can assume that BR​(π​(x))B_{R}(\pi(x)) is contained in the annulus R0≤ρ≤ρ0ϵR_{0}\leq\rho\leq\frac{\rho_{0}}{\epsilon} and that the restriction of H2​mj−4H^{2m_{j}-4} to this ball is trivial. We can then work on a “square” BR×[−R,R]B_{R}\times[-R,R] in the universal cover of H2​mj−4|BRH^{2m_{j}-4}|_{B_{R}}. Rescaling the metric by R−2R^{-2}, applying standard Schauder estimates, rescaling back and multiplying by R−δR^{-\delta} we obtain

‖a‖Cδ1,α​(BR)≤C⁡(‖D​a‖Cδ−10,α​(BR)+‖a‖Cδ0​(BR)).\|a\|_{C^{1,\alpha}_{\delta}(B_{R})}\leq C\left(\|Da\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}(B_{R})}+\|a\|_{C^{0}_{\delta}(B_{R})}\right).

The case of the region R0​ϵ≤ρi≤ρ0R_{0}\epsilon\leq\rho_{i}\leq\rho_{0} is completely analogous.

Finally, in the region where ρj,ρi≥12​ρ0\rho_{j},\rho_{i}\geq\tfrac{1}{2}\rho_{0} the weight function ρϵ\rho_{\epsilon} is uniformly equivalent to the constant 11 and therefore weighted spaces coincide with standard Hölder spaces. Moreover the harmonic function hϵh_{\epsilon} is C∞C^{\infty}–close to the constant 11. The metric gϵg_{\epsilon} is therefore C∞C^{\infty}–close to the metric g∞=g𝕋+ϵ2​θ2g_{\infty}=g_{\mathbb{T}}+\epsilon^{2}\theta^{2}. The Schauder estimate for forms supported in this region is immediate since we can restrict to small balls in the torus 𝕋\mathbb{T} on which the circle bundle PP is trivial and then work on the universal cover, which has bounded geometry. ∎

6.3. The linear estimate

We can now prove the main result about the linearisation of (6.1): the operator DD has uniformly bounded inverse.

Proposition 6.11.

For ϵ\epsilon sufficiently small and δ∈(−2,0)\delta\in(-2,0) there exist CC independent of ϵ\epsilon such that

‖a‖Cδ1,α≤C​‖D​a‖Cδ−10,α.\|a\|_{C^{1,\alpha}_{\delta}}\leq C\|Da\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}.
Proof.

By contradiction assume that there exists a sequence ϵi→0\epsilon_{i}\rightarrow 0 and 11–forms aia_{i} on MϵiM_{\epsilon_{i}} such that ‖ai‖Cδ1,α=1\|a_{i}\|_{C^{1,\alpha}_{\delta}}=1 but ‖D​ai‖Cδ−10,α→0\|Da_{i}\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}\rightarrow 0.

First of all we show that for every compact set KK in MϵghM^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon} which does not contain any puncture we must have ‖ai‖Cδ1,α​(K)→0\|a_{i}\|_{C^{1,\alpha}_{\delta}(K)}\rightarrow 0.

Over KK we can work on the double cover of MϵghM^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon} and regard aia_{i} as ℤ2\mathbb{Z}_{2}–invariant forms. Write ai=ϵi​fi​θ+γia_{i}=\epsilon_{i}f_{i}\,\theta+\gamma_{i}, for a function fif_{i} and a 11–form γi\gamma_{i} such that ξ​⌟​γi=0\xi\lrcorner\gamma_{i}=0 (recall that ξ\xi is the vector field dual to θ\theta). Over KK we can also decompose ai=Π0​ai+Π⟂​aia_{i}=\Pi_{0}a_{i}+\Pi_{\perp}a_{i}. Observe that for any 0<τ<10<\tau<1 (6.6) implies that

ϵi1−τ2​‖Π⟂​ai‖Cδ0≤‖Π⟂​ai‖Cδ−10≤C​ϵi​‖a‖Cδ−11,α\epsilon_{i}^{\frac{1-\tau}{2}}\|\Pi_{\perp}a_{i}\|_{C^{0}_{\delta}}\leq\|\Pi_{\perp}a_{i}\|_{C^{0}_{\delta-1}}\leq C\epsilon_{i}\|a\|_{C^{1,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}

provided ρj,ρi≥c​ϵi1−τ2\rho_{j},\rho_{i}\geq c\,\epsilon_{i}^{\frac{1-\tau}{2}}. Since the gluing regions occur for ρj∼ϵi25\rho_{j}\sim\epsilon_{i}^{\frac{2}{5}} and ρi∼ϵi25\rho_{i}\sim\epsilon_{i}^{\frac{2}{5}} we can choose τ>0\tau>0 sufficiently small so that these assumptions are satisfied on MϵghM^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon}. Thus ‖Π⟂​ai‖Cδ0​(K)→0\|\Pi_{\perp}a_{i}\|_{C^{0}_{\delta}(K)}\rightarrow 0.

By the Arzelá–Ascoli Theorem we can therefore assume that (fi,γi)(f_{i},\gamma_{i}) converges to (f0,γ)∈Ω0​(𝕋)⊕Ω1​(𝕋)(f_{0},\gamma)\in\Omega^{0}(\mathbb{T})\oplus\Omega^{1}(\mathbb{T}). By (6.4) (f0,γ)(f_{0},\gamma) satisfies

(6.12) ∗d​γ+d​f0=0=d∗​γ\ast d\gamma+df_{0}=0=d^{\ast}\gamma

on 𝕋\mathbb{T}. The control on ‖ai‖Cδ1,α\|a_{i}\|_{C^{1,\alpha}_{\delta}} guarantees that |f0|+|γ|≤C​ρδ|f_{0}|+|\gamma|\leq C\rho^{\delta} close to the punctures.

We want to conclude that f0f_{0} is constant and γ\gamma is a smooth harmonic 11–form on 𝕋\mathbb{T}. By trivialising the cotangent bundle of the 33–torus 𝕋\mathbb{T} by harmonic 11–forms θ1,θ2,θ3\theta_{1},\theta_{2},\theta_{3} we can write γ=f1​θ1+f2​θ2+f3​θ3\gamma=f_{1}\theta_{1}+f_{2}\theta_{2}+f_{3}\theta_{3}. Then f0,f1,f2,f3f_{0},f_{1},f_{2},f_{3} are harmonic functions on the punctured 33–torus with controlled blow-up rate at the punctures. Since δ>−2\delta>-2, close to each puncture we must have fi=λi+ci​ρ−1+O⁡(ρ)f_{i}=\lambda_{i}+c_{i}\rho^{-1}+O(\rho) for some constants λi,ci\lambda_{i},c_{i}. However, cic_{i} must vanish for all i=0,1,2,3i=0,1,2,3 if (f0,fi)(f_{0},f_{i}) is a solution of the first order system (6.12) and not only of the second order PDE this implies. Hence the functions fif_{i} are bounded harmonic functions on 𝕋\mathbb{T} and must be constant.

However, by ℤ2\mathbb{Z}_{2}–invariance of the 11–forms aia_{i} the functions fif_{i} must be odd with respect to the involution τ\tau on 𝕋\mathbb{T} and must therefore vanish. Thus (f0,γ)=0(f_{0},\gamma)=0 and the Schauder estimate of Proposition 6.10 implies that ‖ai‖Cδ1,α​(K)→0\|a_{i}\|_{C^{1,\alpha}_{\delta}(K)}\rightarrow 0.

Next we look at what happens close to one of the punctures. By what we have just proved and the assumption ‖ai‖Cδ1,α​(Mϵ)=1\|a_{i}\|_{C^{1,\alpha}_{\delta}(M_{\epsilon})}=1, there exists at least a j=1,…,8j=1,\dots,8 or i=1,…,ni=1,\dots,n such that ‖ai‖Cδ1,α≥1n+8>0\|a_{i}\|_{C^{1,\alpha}_{\delta}}\geq\tfrac{1}{n+8}>0 in the region ρj≤ϵ25\rho_{j}\leq\epsilon^{\frac{2}{5}} or ρi≤ϵ25\rho_{i}\leq\epsilon^{\frac{2}{5}}. We fix attention to such a region. Rescaling the metric by ϵi−2\epsilon_{i}^{-2} and replacing aia_{i} with a~i=ϵi−δ−1​ai\tilde{a}_{i}=\epsilon_{i}^{-\delta-1}a_{i}, from now on we will work on a DmD_{m} or an Ak−1A_{k-1} ALF space. Denote either of these non-compact manifolds by MM. Because of the behaviour of the weighted Hölder norm in Definition 6.8 under rescaling, we have ‖a~i‖Cδ1,α=‖ai‖Cδ1,α≥1n+8\|\tilde{a}_{i}\|_{C^{1,\alpha}_{\delta}}=\|a_{i}\|_{C^{1,\alpha}_{\delta}}\geq\tfrac{1}{n+8}. For ease of notation we replace a~i\tilde{a}_{i} with aia_{i} until the end of the proof.

By the Arzelá–Ascoli Theorem over every compact set of MM we can extract a subsequence of {ai}\{a_{i}\} that converges to a solution aa of D​a=0Da=0 on MM. Moreover, |a|≤C​ρδ|a|\leq C\rho^{\delta}. Since δ<0\delta<0 we conclude that a=0a=0. Indeed, the equation D​a=0Da=0 in particular implies that △​a=0\triangle a=0. Since MM is Ricci-flat, the Weitzenböck formula yields |a|​△​|a|≤0|a|\,\triangle|a|\leq 0 and therefore |a|=0|a|=0 by the maximum principle.

Now, if ‖ai‖Cδ0​(M)→0\|a_{i}\|_{C^{0}_{\delta}(M)}\rightarrow 0 then the Schauder estimate of Proposition 6.10 would yield a contradiction to the assumption ‖ai‖Cδ1,α≥1n+8\|a_{i}\|_{C^{1,\alpha}_{\delta}}\geq\frac{1}{n+8}. Assume therefore that there exists some ν>0\nu>0 such that ‖ai‖Cδ0≥ν\|a_{i}\|_{C^{0}_{\delta}}\geq\nu. Since ai→0a_{i}\rightarrow 0 in Cδ1,α​(K)C^{1,\alpha}_{\delta}(K) for every compact set K⊂MK\subset M there must exists a sequence of points xi∈Mx_{i}\in M going off to infinity (in particular Ri:=ρ⁡(xi)→∞R_{i}:=\rho(x_{i})\rightarrow\infty) such that |ai​(xi)|≥ν​ρ​(xi)δ|a_{i}(x_{i})|\geq\nu\rho(x_{i})^{\delta}.

Now rescale the metric on MM by Ri−2R_{i}^{-2} and replace aia_{i} by Ri−δ−1​aiR_{i}^{-\delta-1}a_{i}. Then (M,Ri−2​gM)(M,R_{i}^{-2}g_{M}) is converging to the tangent cone CC at infinity of MM, i.e. either C=ℝ3C=\mathbb{R}^{3} or C=ℝ3/ℤ2C=\mathbb{R}^{3}/\mathbb{Z}_{2} depending on whether MM is of cyclic or dihedral type.

As in the first step of the proof, we can use (6.4) and (6.6) to conclude that Ri−δ−1​aiR_{i}^{-\delta-1}a_{i} sub-converges over compact subsets of C∖{0}C\setminus\{0\} to a pair (f0,γ)∈Ω0​(C)⊕Ω1​(C)(f_{0},\gamma)\in\Omega^{0}(C)\oplus\Omega^{1}(C) such that

∗d​γ+d​f0=0=d∗​γ,\ast d\gamma+df_{0}=0=d^{\ast}\gamma,

|f|+|γ|≤C​ρδ|f|+|\gamma|\leq C\rho^{\delta} and (|f|+|γ|)​(x0)=ν>0(|f|+|\gamma|)(x_{0})=\nu>0 for some x0∈C∖{0}x_{0}\in C\setminus\{0\}. As before, the fact that δ>−2\delta>-2 implies that f,γf,\gamma are bounded close to the origin in CC. The fact that δ<0\delta<0 then forces (f0,γ)(f_{0},\gamma) to vanish. However this contradicts the fact that (|f|+|γ|)​(x0)>0(|f|+|\gamma|)(x_{0})>0. ∎

6.4. The non-linear problem

We are now ready to deform the triple 𝝎¯ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{\epsilon} into a genuine hyperkähler triple by using the following Implicit Function Theorem.

Lemma 6.13.

Let Φ:E→F\Phi\colon\thinspace E\rightarrow F be the smooth function between Banach spaces and write Φ⁡(x)=Φ⁡(0)+L⁡(x)+N⁡(x)\Phi(x)=\Phi(0)+L(x)+N(x), where LL is linear and NN contains the non-linearities. Assume that there exists constants r,C,qr,C,q such that

  1. (i)

    LL is invertible with ‖L−1‖≤C\|L^{-1}\|\leq C;

  2. (ii)

    ‖N⁡(x)−N⁡(y)‖F≤q​‖x+y‖E​‖x−y‖E\|N(x)-N(y)\|_{F}\leq q\|x+y\|_{E}\|x-y\|_{E} for all x,y∈Br​(0)⊂Ex,y\in B_{r}(0)\subset E;

  3. (iii)

    ‖Φ⁡(0)‖F<min⁡{r2​C,14​q​C2}\|\Phi(0)\|_{F}<\min\left\{\frac{r}{2C},\frac{1}{4qC^{2}}\right\}.

Then there exist a unique x∈Ex\in E with ‖x‖E≤2​C​‖Φ⁡(0)‖F\|x\|_{E}\leq 2C\|\Phi(0)\|_{F} such that Φ⁡(x)=0\Phi(x)=0.

In our situation we set

E:=(Cδ1,α​(T∗​Mϵ)⊕ℋϵ+)⊗ℝ3,E:=\left(C^{1,\alpha}_{\delta}(T^{\ast}M_{\epsilon})\oplus\mathcal{H}^{+}_{\epsilon}\right)\otimes\mathbb{R}^{3},

where ℋϵ+\mathcal{H}^{+}_{\epsilon} denotes the space of self-dual harmonic forms with respect to gϵg_{\epsilon}, i.e. constant linear combinations of ωϵ1,ωϵ2,ωϵ3\omega^{1}_{\epsilon},\omega^{2}_{\epsilon},\omega^{3}_{\epsilon}. We endow EE with the product of the Cδ1,αC^{1,\alpha}_{\delta}–norm and the norm on the finite dimensional vector space ℋϵ+⊗ℝ3≃ℝ9\mathcal{H}^{+}_{\epsilon}\otimes\mathbb{R}^{3}\simeq\mathbb{R}^{9} induced by the L2L^{2}–norm. Similarly we set

F:=Cδ−10,α​(ℝ⊕Λ+​T∗​Mϵ)⊗ℝ3F:=C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}(\mathbb{R}\oplus\Lambda^{+}T^{\ast}M_{\epsilon})\otimes\mathbb{R}^{3}

endowed with the Cδ−10,αC^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}–norm.

The operator Φ\Phi is the one defined by (6.1). Thus Φ⁡(0)=−ℱ⁡(id−Qϵ)\Phi(0)=-\mathcal{F}(\text{id}-Q_{\epsilon}), L⁡(𝒂¯+𝜻¯)=D​𝒂¯+𝜻¯L(\bm{\underline{a}}+\bm{\underline{\zeta}})=D\bm{\underline{a}}+\bm{\underline{\zeta}} and the non-linear term is

N⁡(𝒂¯+𝜻¯)=ℱ⁡(id−Qϵ)−ℱ⁡(id−Qϵ−d−​𝒂¯∗d−​𝒂¯).N(\bm{\underline{a}}+\bm{\underline{\zeta}})=\mathcal{F}\left(\text{id}-Q_{\epsilon}\right)-\mathcal{F}\left(\text{id}-Q_{\epsilon}-d^{-}\bm{\underline{a}}\ast d^{-}\bm{\underline{a}}\right).

We need to check that the hypothesis of Lemma 6.13 are satisfied.

We use Proposition 6.11 to show that LL has uniformly bounded inverse for δ∈(−12,0)\delta\in(-\tfrac{1}{2},0).

Lemma 6.14.

For δ∈(−12,0)\delta\in(-\tfrac{1}{2},0) and ϵ\epsilon sufficiently small there exists a constant C>0C>0 independent of ϵ\epsilon such that for every triple of self-dual 22–forms 𝛏¯∈Cδ−10,α\bm{\underline{\xi}}\in C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1} there exists a unique (𝐚¯,𝛇¯)∈E(\bm{\underline{a}},\bm{\underline{\zeta}})\in E with

‖𝒂¯‖Cδ1,α+‖𝜻¯‖≤C​‖𝝃¯‖Cδ−10,α.\|\bm{\underline{a}}\|_{C^{1,\alpha}_{\delta}}+\|\bm{\underline{\zeta}}\|\leq C\|\bm{\underline{\xi}}\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}.

and L⁡(𝐚¯,𝛇¯)=𝛏¯L(\bm{\underline{a}},\bm{\underline{\zeta}})=\bm{\underline{\xi}}.

Proof.

First of all, note that the 22–forms ωϵi\omega_{\epsilon}^{i} have uniformly bounded Cδ−10,αC^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}–norm. Indeed, outside the gluing regions 𝝎¯ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{\epsilon} is a hyperkähler triple and thus ωϵi\omega_{\epsilon}^{i} is parallel and bounded. On the gluing regions, 𝝎¯ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{\epsilon} differs from the hyperkähler triple 𝝎¯qj,ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{q_{j},\epsilon} or 𝝎¯pi,ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{p_{i},\epsilon} by terms of order O⁡(ϵ​ρ2+ϵ3​ρ−3)O(\epsilon\rho^{2}+\epsilon^{3}\rho^{-3}) (with similar estimates on their derivatives). Finally, ρϵ−δ+1\rho_{\epsilon}^{-\delta+1} is bounded above since δ<0\delta<0.

Now, let 𝝎¯~\widetilde{\bm{\underline{\omega}}} be an L2L^{2}–orthonormal triple of harmonic self-dual forms with respect to gϵg_{\epsilon}. Since

∫Mϵωϵi∧ωϵj=2​∫Mϵ(Qϵ)i​j​dvgϵ,\int_{M_{\epsilon}}{\omega_{\epsilon}^{i}\wedge\omega_{\epsilon}^{j}}=2\int_{M_{\epsilon}}{(Q_{\epsilon})_{ij}\,\operatorname{dv}_{g_{\epsilon}}},

QϵQ_{\epsilon} is close to the identity and Volgϵ⁡(Mϵ)=O⁡(ϵ)\operatorname{Vol}_{g_{\epsilon}}(M_{\epsilon})=O(\epsilon) we can assume that

‖𝝎¯~‖Cδ−10,α≤C​ϵ−12​‖𝝎¯ϵ‖Cδ−10,α≤C​ϵ−12.\|\widetilde{\bm{\underline{\omega}}}\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}\leq C\epsilon^{-\frac{1}{2}}\|\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{\epsilon}\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}\leq C\epsilon^{-\frac{1}{2}}.

Finally, observe that for every u∈Cδ−10,αu\in C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1} we have

‖u‖L2≤‖ρϵδ−1‖L2​‖u‖Cδ−10,α≤C⁡(ϵ12+ϵδ+1)​‖u‖Cδ−10,α.\|u\|_{L^{2}}\leq\|\rho_{\epsilon}^{\delta-1}\|_{L^{2}}\|u\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}\leq C(\epsilon^{\frac{1}{2}}+\epsilon^{\delta+1})\|u\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}.

Indeed, using the definition (6.7) of ρϵ\rho_{\epsilon} and the construction of 𝝎¯ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{\epsilon} it is not difficult to estimate ‖ρϵδ−1‖L2≤C⁡(ϵ12+ϵδ+1)\|\rho_{\epsilon}^{\delta-1}\|_{L^{2}}\leq C(\epsilon^{\frac{1}{2}}+\epsilon^{\delta+1}).

Now let π:Cδ−10,α​(Λ+​T∗​Mϵ)→ℋϵ+\pi\colon\thinspace C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}(\Lambda^{+}T^{\ast}M_{\epsilon})\rightarrow\mathcal{H}^{+}_{\epsilon} be the L2L^{2}–orthogonal projection

π⁡(ξ)=∑i=13λi​ω~i,λi=∫ξ∧ω~i,\pi(\xi)=\sum_{i=1}^{3}{\lambda_{i}\,\widetilde{\omega}_{i}},\qquad\lambda_{i}=\int{\xi\wedge\widetilde{\omega}_{i}},

and regard id−π\text{id}-\pi as a map Cδ−10,α​(Λ+​T∗​Mϵ)→Cδ−10,α​(Λ+​T∗​Mϵ)C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}(\Lambda^{+}T^{\ast}M_{\epsilon})\rightarrow C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}(\Lambda^{+}T^{\ast}M_{\epsilon}). By the remarks above we have

|λi|≤C⁡(1+ϵδ+1)​‖ξ‖Cδ−10,α,‖π⁡(ξ)‖Cδ−10,α≤C⁡(1+ϵδ+12)​‖ξ‖Cδ−10,α.|\lambda_{i}|\leq C(1+\epsilon^{\delta+1})\|\xi\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}},\qquad\|\pi(\xi)\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}\leq C(1+\epsilon^{\delta+\frac{1}{2}})\|\xi\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}.

Thus if δ≥−12\delta\geq-\tfrac{1}{2} the projections π\pi and id−π\text{id}-\pi are uniformly bounded. Proposition 6.11 and the surjectivity of LL then yield the result. ∎

Next, we consider the non-linear term NN. Note that this does not involve the harmonic part 𝜻¯\bm{\underline{\zeta}}. The function ℱ\mathcal{F} is pointwise smooth with uniformly controlled norm for ϵ\epsilon sufficiently small. Using the Taylor expansion of ℱ\mathcal{F} at id−Qϵ\text{id}-Q_{\epsilon} and Lemma 6.9 to control products we can therefore find r>0r>0 and CC independent of ϵ\epsilon such that assumption (ii) in Lemma 6.13 is satisfied with rr and q=C​ϵδ−1q=C\epsilon^{\delta-1} for some ϵ\epsilon–independent constant CC.

Finally,

‖ℱ⁡(id−Qϵ)‖Cδ−10,α≤C​‖id−Qϵ‖Cδ−10,α≤C​ϵ2+15−25​δ.\|\mathcal{F}(\text{id}-Q_{\epsilon})\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}\leq C\|\text{id}-Q_{\epsilon}\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}\leq C\epsilon^{2+\frac{1}{5}-\frac{2}{5}\delta}.

Indeed, setting ρ=ρj\rho=\rho_{j} for j=1,…,8j=1,\dots,8 or ρ=ρi\rho=\rho_{i} for some i=1,…,ni=1,\dots,n, in the region ϵ25≤ρ≤2​ϵ25\epsilon^{\frac{2}{5}}\leq\rho\leq 2\epsilon^{\frac{2}{5}} we have |id−Qϵ|=O⁡(ϵ​ρ2+ϵ3​ρ−3)|\text{id}-Q_{\epsilon}|=O(\epsilon\rho^{2}+\epsilon^{3}\rho^{-3}) by (5.8) and ρϵ=ρ\rho_{\epsilon}=\rho by (6.7).

Thus assumption (iii) in Lemma 6.13 is therefore satisfied as soon as ϵ2+15−25​δ≪ϵ1−δ\epsilon^{2+\frac{1}{5}-\frac{2}{5}\delta}\ll\epsilon^{1-\delta}, i.e.

ϵ35​(δ+2)≪1.\epsilon^{\frac{3}{5}(\delta+2)}\ll 1.

If δ>−2\delta>-2 this condition is satisfied for ϵ>0\epsilon>0 sufficiently small.

Theorem 6.15.

Let (𝕋,g𝕋)(\mathbb{T},g_{\mathbb{T}}) be a flat 33–torus with standard involution τ:𝕋→𝕋\tau\colon\thinspace\mathbb{T}\rightarrow\mathbb{T}. Let q1,…,q8q_{1},\dots,q_{8} be the fixed points of τ\tau and let p1,τ⁡(p1),…,pn,τ⁡(pn)p_{1},\tau(p_{1}),\dots,p_{n},\tau(p_{n}) be further 2​n2n distinct points. Denote by 𝕋∗\mathbb{T}^{\ast} the punctured torus 𝕋∖{q1,…,q8,p1,…,τ⁡(pn)}\mathbb{T}\setminus\{q_{1},\dots,q_{8},p_{1},\dots,\tau(p_{n})\}.

Let m1,…,m8∈ℤ≥0m_{1},\dots,m_{8}\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0} and k1,…,kn∈ℤ≥1k_{1},\dots,k_{n}\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 1} satisfy

∑j=18mj+∑i=1nki=16.\sum_{j=1}^{8}{m_{j}}+\sum_{i=1}^{n}{k_{i}}=16.

For each j=1,…,8j=1,\dots,8 fix a DmjD_{m_{j}} ALF space MjM_{j} and for each i=1,…,ni=1,\dots,n an Aki−1A_{k_{i}-1} ALF space NiN_{i}.

Then there exists a 11–parameter family of hyperkähler metrics {gϵ}ϵ∈(0,ϵ0)\{g_{\epsilon}\}_{\epsilon\in(0,\epsilon_{0})} on the K3 surface with the following properties. We can decompose the K3 surface into the union of open sets Kϵ∪⋃j=18Mjϵ∪⋃i=1nNiϵK^{\epsilon}\cup\bigcup_{j=1}^{8}{M_{j}^{\epsilon}}\cup\bigcup_{i=1}^{n}{N_{i}^{\epsilon}} such that

  1. (i)

    (Kϵ,gϵ)(K^{\epsilon},g_{\epsilon}) collapses to the flat orbifold 𝕋∗/ℤ2\mathbb{T}^{\ast}/\mathbb{Z}_{2} with bounded curvature away from the punctures;

  2. (ii)

    for each j=1,…,8j=1,\dots,8 and k≥0k\geq 0, (Mjϵ,ϵ−2​gϵ)(M_{j}^{\epsilon},\epsilon^{-2}g_{\epsilon}) converges in Cl​o​ck,αC^{k,\alpha}_{loc} to the DmjD_{m_{j}} ALF space MjM_{j};

  3. (iii)

    for each i=1,…,ni=1,\dots,n and k≥0k\geq 0, (Njϵ,ϵ−2​gϵ)(N_{j}^{\epsilon},\epsilon^{-2}g_{\epsilon}) converges in Cl​o​ck,αC^{k,\alpha}_{loc} to the Aki−1A_{k_{i}-1} ALF space NiN_{i}.

Proof.

Given data as in the statement we constructed a 44–manifold MϵM_{\epsilon} and a 11–parameter family of closed definite triples 𝝎¯ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{\epsilon} which are approximately hyperkähler. For ϵ\epsilon sufficiently small we can apply Lemma 6.13 to find unique 𝒂¯ϵ∈Cδ1,α​(T∗​Mϵ)\bm{\underline{a}}_{\epsilon}\in C^{1,\alpha}_{\delta}(T^{\ast}M_{\epsilon}) for δ∈(−12,0)\delta\in(-\tfrac{1}{2},0) and 𝜻¯ϵ∈ℋϵ+\bm{\underline{\zeta}}_{\epsilon}\in\mathcal{H}^{+}_{\epsilon} such that ‖𝒂¯ϵ‖Cδ1,α+‖𝜻¯ϵ‖≤C​ϵ11−2​δ5\|\bm{\underline{a}}_{\epsilon}\|_{C^{1,\alpha}_{\delta}}+\|\bm{\underline{\zeta}}_{\epsilon}\|\leq C\epsilon^{\frac{11-2\delta}{5}} and 𝝎¯ϵ+d​𝒂¯ϵ+𝜻¯ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{\epsilon}+d\bm{\underline{a}}_{\epsilon}+\bm{\underline{\zeta}}_{\epsilon} is a hyperkähler structure on MϵM_{\epsilon}. In particular, since b1​(Mϵ)=0b_{1}(M_{\epsilon})=0 by Proposition 5.1, MϵM_{\epsilon} must be diffeomorphic to the K3 surface.

Away from the gluing regions 𝒂¯ϵ\bm{\underline{a}}_{\epsilon} solves the elliptic PDE d+​𝒂¯ϵ=ℱ⁡(d−​𝒂¯ϵ∗d−​𝒂¯ϵ)−𝜻¯ϵd^{+}\bm{\underline{a}}_{\epsilon}=\mathcal{F}(d^{-}\bm{\underline{a}}_{\epsilon}\ast d^{-}\bm{\underline{a}}_{\epsilon})-\bm{\underline{\zeta}}_{\epsilon}, d∗​𝒂¯ϵ=0d^{\ast}\bm{\underline{a}}_{\epsilon}=0. By elliptic regularity, for any k≥2k\geq 2 the Ck,αC^{k,\alpha}–norm of 𝒂¯ϵ\bm{\underline{a}}_{\epsilon} on compact sets of MϵghM^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon} and (after rescaling) on compact sets of the gravitational instantons MjM_{j} and NiN_{i} is controlled in terms of ‖𝒂¯ϵ‖Cδ1,α+‖𝜻¯ϵ‖\|\bm{\underline{a}}_{\epsilon}\|_{C^{1,\alpha}_{\delta}}+\|\bm{\underline{\zeta}}_{\epsilon}\|. In particular, on compact sets of MϵghM^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon} the hyperkähler metric induced by 𝝎¯ϵ+d​𝒂¯ϵ+𝜻¯ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{\epsilon}+d\bm{\underline{a}}_{\epsilon}+\bm{\underline{\zeta}}_{\epsilon} is Ck,αC^{k,\alpha}–close to g𝕋+ϵ2​θ2g_{\mathbb{T}}+\epsilon^{2}\theta^{2}. The statements (i), (ii) and (iii) about the limit ϵ→0\epsilon\rightarrow 0 now follow. ∎

By varying all parameters involved in the construction we can in fact realise a whole open set in the moduli space of hyperkähler metrics on the K3 surface. Indeed,

  1. (i)

    the moduli space of flat tori is 66–dimensional;

  2. (ii)

    the choice of punctures p1,…,pnp_{1},\dots,p_{n} yields additional 3​n3n parameters;

  3. (iii)

    once the punctured torus and weights are fixed, the moduli space of abelian Dirac monopoles with prescribed singularities is 44 dimensional (one has to choose ϵ\epsilon and the 33–moduli of a flat connection);

  4. (iv)

    each DmjD_{m_{j}} ALF space contributes 3​mj3m_{j} parameters and every Aki−1A_{k_{i}-1} ALF space contributes 3​(ki−1)3(k_{i}-1) parameters.

Hence the total number of parameters in the construction is

6+3​n+4+3​∑j=18mj+3​∑i=1nki−3​n=10+3×16=58,6+3n+4+3\sum_{j=1}^{8}{m_{j}}+3\sum_{i=1}^{n}{k_{i}}-3n=10+3\times 16=58,

which is exactly the dimension of the moduli space of Ricci-flat metrics on the K3 surface (without any normalisation on volume).

Original mathematics by the credited authors. Source-backed reader collection; mathematical self-containment is not assessed.